I guess his detractors are wrong again.

have such a good sense of judging what is and isn't good for the country outside of the DC/New York elite bubble.

He is also very liberal on gun laws....

I didn't I expected him to pick someone the Republicans would have to commit suicide not to vote for. Which they might very well do. That they'd be willing to give up a seat to a super liberal

"I'm an new Democrat"

Apparently I'm one of the few who called out it out @ the beginning.

My fellow DU'rs called me names and other choice words.

Yet Obama has completely met my expectations.

Let's do it all over with Hillary! Yeay!

I think Obama knows Garland is going to the bench. It is a very calculated pick on his part as far as I'm concerned. Obama is not a stupid man. If a Dem wins the White House in November they are going to wish they had Merrick Garland. Dem President can pick a more liberal justice. Even if SOMEHOW Garland is chosen, the court still moves from the right. Couldn't be any further right than with Scalia on the court. Lets see how it plays out.

confirmed...... JMHO.

He's not the best, but the kind of person the GOP can't reasonably refuse either.

And the President's legacy is a bit bigger than just one SC nominee, even if he's not the best.

They've their go far left wing or lie. stuck in a no win situation of their own making . do'h..

I might be pro Bernie but Obama did or tried to do what we elected him to do. Work with republicans and he did everything within his power to work with republicans. If people on the left can't see this then their memory is failing but thats what he was put in there to do because Bush wouldn't. Didn't know the rest had become like Bush.

And give the Corporate friendly, 1% freindly right, the best opponent they could wish for.



It's called the Thirdway, and why Wall Street backed Obama didn't jail 1 fucking banker for the economic collapse.

That's just one totally obvious example.

Stay Ignorant my friends.

government to private practice!

I have been saying this for years, we need someone on the Supreme Court who has made their living representing individuals. Someone who is in touch with average Americans and knows the struggles they face in trying to sue huge multi-nationals like BP. Someone who knows what the effect of the corporate sponsored tort reform movement has had on the rights of average Americans.

If you are wrong on this strategy we get royally screwed. I say just keep putting up Progressives and make the Republicans shoot them down.

It is no surprise only the top 1% have gained any wealth under his presidency.

I could have guessed.....

Their will not be any change under Clinton.
Yeah I support Bernie Sanders!

Simpson Bowles

his own admission he is a Reagan Republican.

We got fucking taken.

this must be viewed as a gambit in the much bigger game.

What are the odds that McConnell will cave? At this point the odds look slim. Obama's tactic is to nominate a person that lots of Republicans could support, even if he is no Scalia. And as we get closer to the election, one of two things can happen, both of which are favorable to us:

1) The GOP fears that they will lose the election and that Hillary will nominate somebody they like less, so they go ahead and confirm Garland. That isn't the end of the world because Hillary will have at least one more to appoint in her first term -- possibly 2 or 3. And anybody who thinks Hillary is any less a corporatist is nuts.

2) McConnell digs in his heels. And because Garland is such a ht-friendly nominee already, Hillary can effectively use this as a spear against the intransigent GOP, which will help her win.

My guess is that Obama thinks the second outcome is more likely, so this is basically a throw-away pick.

Wow, someone else with eyes wide open!

No shit right? Just follow the fucking money.

That should lead you to why no bankers have been indicted and why drug prices are soaring and you can't get away from BS drug commercials.

So much more......so tired.

Let's do it all again with Hillary!!!!

or vote green. corporate corruption circling the wagons.

the oligarchy is doing all it can to protect itself, and at the top, its a uniparty anyway.

welcome to du!

you do that Lot's of desertion from the war here AND GOING OVER TO THE ENEMY. DISGUSTING

WTF, you're electing the enemy. Do fucking 5 minutes of research. Oh yeah, that's right facts don't matter.

if one is threatening to give trumpchump a free pass by not voting for our nominee, then yes desertion fron the field of battle is my perception.

We always vote Democrat. It's been asked and called out a millions times.

I can understand said *critics* Trump comments. I've gone through 2 presidential (both re-elected) cycles run by the Thirdway, Bill and Obama.

Yet it's fucking impossible for Hillary supporters to understand that the Thirdway has brought us here.

And now we're going to do it all over again with Hillary.

Do some fucking Historical research, which I know you won't do because the rhetoric is all you need right?

She will flip and flop whenever she needs to to make her controllers happy. She's not in it for the people. If you do Historical research you would know she'll say anything to get what she wants.

But you know what, if Bernie doesn't win then I hope Hillary does because we need more pain. That's the only thing that will wake the proud ignorant voters (no this not aimed at you or anyone in particular as it applies to Republican voters too). Everybody who needed help when Obama came into Office needed his help desperately and voted him in only to be forgotten, and thrown under the bus (while he was on Fox news I would add)

Clue: When Presidential nominees say they are "New Democrats", that means they are thirdway. The Thirdway is made up of Investment Bankers and the 1% and control the DNC. Look the shit up.

Let me know when you have undeniable proof that investment bankers and the 1% genuinely care about the rest of the population, then I might change my mind. Until then I won't hold my breath.

Do you ever wonder why 0 bankers were indicted for the economic crash? Because they helped fund Obama's campaign. Why are drug prices so high? Because the pharmaceutical industry helped fund his campaign.

I get frustrated when people are so sure, yet hole up when I ask about factual information cause all I get back is rhetoric proving I'm sailing on a ship of fools.



Real Democrats are liberal and support the working individual. It was never about corporations and the 1% but now, we have Democrats that are millionaires. Hillary has been in Public Service most of her entire career as amassed 40+ million dollars.

How is that possible working for the public service sector?

Wake the hell up.

just take a whiff of your BS. DON'T VOTE BECAUSE OF YOUR HYSTERICAL "HISTORICAL RESEARCH". I am at the point where I was when Nader siphoned off votes before the out and out theft. If you prefer trump as POTUS, more power tp you and if you get him, you will get what you were looking for or not. I've voted since nixon, the rare politician that really cares about us is basically gone. Too much money in politics to stay incorruptible. I don't need your type of research when common everyday sense will suffice to understand how degraded both Partys are. The lesser of evils is what it is coming down to, again. All your cursing does is show a lack of respect. You have a good vote, ya heah?

all that.

"I've voted since nixon, the rare politician that really cares about us is basically gone." BS

"The lesser of evils is what it is coming down to, again." Yep and you're voting for Evil Inc fer sure yeah?

"All your cursing does is show a lack of respect." I should have respect for willful ignorance? Not when one is going to fuck other people's lives with it.

This however clarifies everything:
"I don't need your type of research when common everyday sense will suffice to understand how degraded both Partys are."

Respect of all the shit, you gotta be kidding me. Like how Bill was respectful of the law while he was canvassing at election centers for Hillary.

What fucking BS.

that reasonable, thinking, rational people will prevail in this society. Not hysterical researchers. You have nothing that could possibly sway me to stop thinking for myself......follow, I don't. May our best cadidate be in the GE....that would be anyone that can beat thre soon to be republican nominee. I will vote for the Democratic Party nominee, NO MATTER WHAT. Have a good election day, ya heah. I'm done engaging with you. No reply necessary or wanted.

His agenda is clear. If you vote for him you are complicit is all of the misery that follows.

oh so far from it. Nice to know you're making an educated decision.

I was responding to someone who said that they were going to vote for Trump.

I hope you can forgive me, it's been tense lately.

Someone here is voting for Trump? Obviously not a Hillary fan.

Like I said in a previous post,:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1506294

We need more pain for the simpler crowd to understand the issues. I've been here too long and I see the same mistakes in previously elections happening all over again. It's a cycle we can't seem to get out of. We've done the Thirdway for 16 years with Bill and Obama and here we are.

Now we're going to do it again. I can't fucking stand the stupid anymore.

Again, Sorry for coming off at you I thought you were a Hillary supporter.

Peace.

-p.

they have no freaking clue

If you support a racist.

Then you don't belong here.

You're not afraid because your life isn't at stake.

Would you rather appoint a far left candidate with no chance of even a hearing, or someone to paint the obstructionist Republicans in a corner, and someone who could possibly actually get confirmed?

For too many on this board, being philosophically pure and losing big is preferable to, you know, actually governing.

My President has made another great decision for the country.

It really brings said members out of the shadows.

you would argue that that has NOTHING AT ALL to do with the current wave of antiestablishment rage on both sides?

i guess you have been away for the last 40 years. hope it was someplace nice.....,

I laugh at anyone that screams ESTABLISMENT IS BAAADDDDD, yet promotes a dude that has been established in our political system most of his adult life.

Fuck that. How about getting someone who will actually fight for average Americans.

between a far left candidate and a corporate loyalist. Do you even understand what is at stake here? Do you have any idea what the most fundamental issue is in the USA today politically? Get real ... this ain't a chess match, it's about the survival of democracy and, frankly, the world.

Oh, and to save you some time. Don't bother with the chicken little, sky is falling innuendos. I'm immune to them.

"you have to accept the Democratic candidate unconditionally for the sake of the Supreme Court" to you have to accept whoever the Republicans will accept in record time.

Why am I not surprised. And people ask me why I prefer being unaffiliated.

Signed
A DINO from the left.

financed his campaign, the same as Hillary.

Your President is ruining lives that needed desperate help after Bush. To bad those folks have been forgotten in the name of your President.

own in the face of the GOP and further expose their real agenda. They are more interested in minimizing Obama than they are about handling the business of the people of the United States. Those old voices in the GOP are under more scrutiny than ever before.

Let's give them someone they actually want. Lol!!

us.

This nomination is to replace Scalia, a far Right Justice, and the Senate is controlled by Republicans. I find the constant character assassination by these same folks of our President to be unnerving. You are free to start your own political party if that is your wish.

You folks don't own the party.

I'm sick and tired of the President, Hillary and even Warren being attacked by the far Left. If you're so unhappy, then start up your own Party.

Most of which votes came in red states which she will never carry., Get real.

Tit fpor tat time here: I'm sick and tired of you high horse 3rd Wayers -- start your own god-damned party. We can play this infantile game all day long if you want.

I responded that Hillary has received 2.5 million more votes than Sanders meaning that millions more agree with us than you. You bring up Red states like that has any relevance at all.

You are right -- ignore my first paragraph then in that last response. The rest remains.

How about Kansas? Nebraska?

Great showing in MO, but weren't we told when it looked like Hill would win "It doesn't count because it won't go blue in November"?

I just hate it that it has been hijacked by people who should have started their own party.
Now those same folks are the ones telling me to get out and start a new one.
How about I just help liberate the one I already have and send the carpetbagging corporatists packing?

I'll keep the party, you go on and start your own.

Can you tell me why Hillary Clinton should be President? and I want specifics, and not just the usual vague exhortations that she's "awesome."

Maybe it's because -

Clinton Voters Like Obama More Than Sanders Supporters Do

?w=575

...and why Hillary is winning. You will most often see Hillary cozy up to Obama as much as she can, and it appears to be helping her.


http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/voters-who-like-obama-like-clinton/

Last edited Wed Mar 16, 2016, 04:49 PM - Edit history (1)

Hope and Change my ass.

For shame Obama, for shame. Repugs aren't going to vote for him, even if they should, so you have gained nothing by this move.

President. Bernie is the only one I am sure would deep-sic that POS, but it is pre-signed by Obama so all it needs is the Senate to do a simple up or down vote. He teed it magnificently for his masters.

voting for Bernie because Bernis IS telling the truth.

Sanders supporters live in a political vacuum.

gawd that must get tiring.

Let's say the GOP wanted the most conservative, banker friendly, 1% friendly politician if they're guy doesn't win.

Well all they need to do is bitch, piss, and complain about said opponent because the simple mind will translate that to, ooh look they hate him/her that must mean we must vote for him/her.

Meanwhile the Democratic opponent to said hated Democratic front runner get's no scourge and the base thinks the Republicans are not worried about opponent thereby securing the field for the front runner.

The Democratic base have just done the Republicans work for them.

In the end if their person loses, they have the best "other option".

Done, simple.

That's not 5 layered 10 dimensional chess, that's just basic gameplay because a nation of fools is easy to manipulate.

Just rinse and repeat.

But what do I know, I've only been following politics seriously for the last 20+ years.

Stay ignorant my friends.

I doubt that one kind find many attorneys who have not worked for a law firm that also defended corporations.

Nor, would it have been smart to nominate someone at this time who does not have wide acceptability.

I think Obama has secured his legacy as a wise Prez, who acts in the best interest of the entire country.

Could he at least put a social justice lawyer up for nomination?

I think your perception of this nomination lacks nuance.
Obama does not intend to put this guy on the bench. He's merely nominated a guy the GOP will have serious issues denying. Obama knows, come hell or high water, the GOP will do everything to block this nomination. He's forcing their hand. They will have to vote against one of their own at a time when two thirds of the population want the House to okay an appointee.
Basically, he's just handed the suicidal GOP a knife to do the job with.
Barring this guy will hurt the GOP in the national election. Then, once the new Dem or Independent President takes office, there will be an open path to put a Liberal on the bench.

The president has done this before, stretching allll the way over the aisle, just to prove that the Republicans are nutjobs who will oppose him at everything. He does this until they exhaust their options and political capital and then makes his real play.

Merrick Garland is not president obama's "final answer." Unless, I suppose, the Republicans have wised up on this strategy. Which I truly doubt.

Garland as the nominee is rejected by the Senate, then Obama won't have to nominate him again. The Republicans lose, because they reject one of their own, and the Democrats win, because a moderate is rejected, getting a Democrat the presidency and perhaps a Democratic Senate.

Yea Thirdway, getting the job done!

because of the Supreme Court.

This is four dimensional shit that you just won't understand.

appointment to the high court in the last 60 years, since William Brennan was placed on the court.

the kind of brilliant mind that comes along one in a generation, at most. Maybe only once every two generations.

I have a strong bias towards her. She wrote an impassioned dissent in a case where the majority was gutting the Indian Child Welfare Act.

All one has to do is a little research but facts and logic reasoning mean nothing when you have Hillary blinders on.

P.S. Nice OP, too bad the thread is filled with the clueless. After all the Hillary supporters have done, I've just decided to be an independent. The 2 party system is a sham and I will not support the ignorant.

Bipartisan support too. Perhaps he's just a moderate judge who applies legal precedent to cases vice political ideology.

You have to start with the fact that Obama's pick has zero chance of getting confirmed, whoever it was. Obama knows that, the nominee has to know that, and the Republicans know that. So ask yourself what is the point of Obama even bothering to pick a nominee and in the face of that what sort of nominee should he pick. Frankly, Obama had no choice but to pick a nominee, even in the face of overwhelming opposition. The constitution requires him to do so. Okay, so given that he has to pick someone, who should he pick? Somebody he really want to see on the court and that the Republicans don't want to see on the court. That nominee would absolutely go nowhere. Not only that, if the person we a serious lefty, not only would he or she go nowhere, the nominee him or herself would serve as a bogey man for the repugnants in their campaign. If we get Hillary Clinton (or Bernie Sanders, if you want to pretend that is still possible), then this shows you what they will do to the court.... blah, blah, blah. They will of course make that kind of argument in any case. But it will be significantly harder with Garland. There are no reasonable grounds for the Republicans to complain about the character, temperament, experience, judicial philosophy of Garland. Of course, they will still block it. But that's part of the point. It gets them to show their true colors.

If Hillary Clinton were to become president and the democrats take the Senate, she will nominate someone much younger and probably much less centrist. This prospect also forces the Republican to make some hard calculations. They are in something of a bind. Since there is nothing bogeymanish about the nominee, they cannot use the nominee himself as a bogey man. But they do face the prospect that of Clinton making the nomination of someone they would despise. That in itself tends to undercut their reason for opposing the current nominee. They may still hold out some hope of winning the presidency and retaining the Senate -- even though most of them believe that Trump will in all likelihood go down to a massive defeat and may take many of them with him.

But calculations be damned. They are stuck, as they have been throughout Obama's two terms in a totally uncompromising crouch.


That's a bad thing, but it does have the upside of enabling the democrats to paint them as what they are -- totally uncompromising, willing to reject even a middle of the road option.

Their rejectionist stance will help mobilize democrats, by showing that if we were to get a republican president, the likely nominee will be completely unacceptable, since they are unwilling to confirm even a bland but highly qualified middle of the roader like Garland.

If Obama had made a more leftist, less centrist pick, there would still be some of the same pressure on the Republicans, but they could also use the nominee him or herself would be used as a bogeyman. (And still, the nominee would never sit on the Court -- unless renominated by Clinton or Sanders).

Also, you have to think that only a nominee who saw this as his or her only chance to be nominated would let him or herself be put as a sacrificial lamb in this way.

!

What did you say?

"This is the stupidest, most clueless commentary."

Well you just topped it. You apparently don't know Hillary and how the Thirdway works.

can do much damage. Gingrich care, TPP, saying all of the Rhode island teachers should be fired, fracking, race to the bottom...what legacy?

He never has cared what people think so much. At least not what we think.

of Democrats if you dislike our Democratic President?

Does that destroy Bernie's legacy too?

corporate personhood, and political contributions as protected political speech which cannot be limited? Where does he stand on those issues? If he supports those positions, I do not support him, and neither should any Democrat.